One issue that I think deserves it's own post is that IFFFF this split ever happened in the future, here's a twist:

I think you'd still find that the NCAA would have no way to really counter the move...and it's not a stretch to think that they would WANT and ALLOW these schools to remain in the NCAA for non football/basketball sports. It might seem odd now to think so, but in the long run, the secondary/non-revenue sports benefit by still being connected in some way to the power schools.

But at that point a split would be unnecessary if it's only for football. The issue here is that FBS is getting watered down and the gap between the top BCS schools and the rest will be even more substantial soon. Boise is the only non BCS school that can realistically compete with the BCS schools in football. All you would need to do is redraw the lines in D-I football. The top level would be the schools that are probably wealthy enough to pay athlete (though I'm not in favor of that, a college education can be worth 80-120k plus a degree will equal a million more in life but this is up to them). The second level would be the lower half of FBS and upper half of FCS. These schools aren't wealthy, but have enough money to offer a good amount of scholarships to players. The third level would be for those not offering scholarships or offering a few.

It might be best for the NCAA to just take 100-120 schools and make that the highest level. The 80 or so football playing schools plus about 30 of the best non football schools. Basically what Quinn has listed plus the best of C-USA and the MWC for football, and then schools like Butler or others out of the A-10. I know there is talk about splitting D-III, may as well go to 5 divisions, especially if it keeps those top schools happy.

If the big schools were to leave the NCAA, one of the main reasons would be not to share with the smaller schools. Let's face it, the big boys don't like sharing their BCS bowl spots with the Boise State's and the TCU's of the world right now much less offering them conference memberships. I'm not even sure how much they like sharing the BCS money with the Big East and ACC.

I think Quinn's model of 67 teams, (12-12-12-12-10-9) may get knocked down to 64, four super conferences of 16. Personally, I like Quinn's idea of 72, 4-18 team conferences, but I don't think the Big 10, PAC 12 and SEC will.

The Big 10 likes "brands" and markets. Rutgers and Missouri gives the Big Ten markets and Kansas basketball is a "brand". Notre Dame gives them both. Also, all but the Irish are AAU members and state schools.

The SEC isn't as big on markets as the Big 10. The SEC likes quality match-ups to sell to the networks. Oklahoma is national power. Clemson and Texas A&M have plenty of football tradition. Adding TCU to Texas A&M gives the SEC plenty of exposure to the Texas recruits. There is no secret the SEC really desires the Aggies. Personally, if I could not have Virginia Tech, I'd try to get NC State over Clemson just to get my foot into the state of North Carolina. That's just me.

This gives the PAC 12 Texas which they desire. You can't have Texas without Texas Tech. Oklahoma State wants to be with Texas more than they want to be with Oklahoma. They make good travel partners with Texas and Texas Tech. The academic side of the PAC 12 isn't thrilled with Boise State joining but considering the lack of football powers in the west, Boise gets in. With the exception of Boise State, this is pretty much what the PAC was shooting for last summer

Being low man on this totem pole, the ACC picks the best of what's left by securing the entire East coast. Syracuse would already be in the ACC if not for Virginia politics. The ACC was lucky on that one. Pitt and WVU give them 2 quality teams and another rivalry. UConn fits in nicely with the other ACC basketball schools.

WHO'S LEFT OUT?

BAYLOR, IOWA STATE, KANSAS STATE, CINCINNATI AND USF, who all stay in the NCAA and join the Mountain West and Conference USA respectfully.

I think the key here is that while the superleague would want to preserve most of the conferences and rivalries, it's the economic structure that would change. Based on the initial proposals, it seems like it would be more like an NFL system where all TV revenues go into a pool and are shared. In other words, the rationale for say, the Big Ten, to pass on an Iowa St. are less of an issue. Would make it possible for schools like Iowa St., Missouri, etc to team up with current Big Ten schools, despite not adding enough by the current standards.

I think the key here is that while the superleague would want to preserve most of the conferences and rivalries, it's the economic structure that would change. Based on the initial proposals, it seems like it would be more like an NFL system where all TV revenues go into a pool and are shared. In other words, the rationale for say, the Big Ten, to pass on an Iowa St. are less of an issue. Would make it possible for schools like Iowa St., Missouri, etc to team up with current Big Ten schools, despite not adding enough by the current standards.

If that's the case, great. You could have the 6-12 team leagues that you suggested. As stated before, any Superleague is years down the road but I don't see the big boys wanting to share. Even in the NFL, the big market owners are starting to separate themselves from the smaller market owners.

I just don't have any faith that the SEC will want to share with the ACC or the Big Ten will want to share with the Big East. I don't see Texas sharing it's Longhorn Network money with any of the other Big 12 members. I don't see Iowa sharing with Iowa State or Notre Dame sharing with Baylor. In the end, I believe that the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 will continue to make themselves stronger and not give a rat's .... about the other leagues. If they did, they would not have any problems with non-BCS schools taking BCS spots away from them now. They are not going to share unless they are forced too.

I believe, the conferences would still negotiate there own TV packages, their own championship games, etc. just like they do now. No one wants to yield any power, if they did we would have a playoff instead of the current bowl system.

I hope I am wrong and you are right. I prefer your way much more than the way I perceive theirs.

I agree sean. It's just that right now, the BCS conferences have a common enemy: the bottom feeders of FBS and non-football conferences for basketball. But with a split, the same instinct will exist, and it would be hard for the Big Ten and SEC, the top dogs, to justify paying the new bottomfeeders (Big East) an equal share.

Eventually though, you won't find a case where those top conferences split from the other 4 int he BCS, so at some point, it has to give.

My take: if a superleague ever happened, it would be 6 conferences of 12. Revenue would not be evenly split. Big 12 would be forced to exapand by 2 with BYU and either UNLV/Boise St./New Mexico/TCU. Big East would be forced to add 3 schools (4 if TCU joined Big 12).

BUT....I wouldn't be shocked if the new league went with 6 conferences of 14 members. It's a way to better justify it to the country IF it means that they be adding a total of 17 current NON-BCS schools.

For the record, if you took these 80-100 schools and split them off (either separate to the NCAA or into a new division I) they would account for just about every championship in the past 10 years. The one's they haven't dominated are sports like rifling, skiing, or rowing, not that these sports really follow the traditional D-I, D-II, D-III levels nor are they of major concern to anyone.

However, the WCC and Big West schools do very well in a few sports. These are baseball, volleyball, soccer, and water polo. The West Coast tends to dominate Water Polo and we're pretty good in volleyball. Baseball is a big one and you don't want to see those California schools lost in a spin off (not to mention Rice would be lost too). If the BCS schools stayed and became a new higher level, the NCAA could continue to allow schools to play up. If they spin off, they'll lose some good schools out west.

Oh and East Coast Lacrosse is really good as well. If the BCS schools split off they would be leaving behind some very good lacrosse schools. I don't care for lacrosse (and neither do most people out west) but I hear it's pretty big back east. Don't want to lose those schools.

BUT....I wouldn't be shocked if the new league went with 6 conferences of 14 members. It's a way to better justify it to the country IF it means that they be adding a total of 17 current NON-BCS schools.

I think that much of the speculation over formation of superconferences centers around the concept of four conferences of 16 feeding into a neat 4 team playoff. Each group would have 2 divisions and hold its own league championship, then the winners would go on to semis and finals around New Year's Day. Six or more conferences of 14 doesn't do it.IMO, Seanbo just about nailed it with his initial 4 x 16 alignment. You could debate Rutgers vs Pitt for slots in the Big 10 and ACC and Oklahoma vs Boise St in the Pac-16. I would see Fla St and Clemson joining TAMU and TCU in the SEC and then Conn, Syr, Pitt, WV, USF and Lou filling up the ACC.

Of course this is fantasy. 12 teams is where the conferences are staying for some time.

There will NEVER be a 4x16, 64-team super league of college football teams.

Why not? The SEC and ACC are at 14 and are looking for 16...PAC12 knows who they want and are just waiting.

The only conference not making moves is the Big Ten...

If the others go to 16 I see tons of pressure on them to do the same.

I think the door just about closed with the Pac-16 not happening. THAT was the keystone, because the only Pac-16 options would be Texas/Oklahoma (with their kid sisters in tow). There aren't any western options for the Pac-12 now. 6 yr tv rights waiver set, means at least 6 years before Pac-16 rumors start.

As for the Big Ten, really no options either. If they wanted to expand, they would have...they had pretty much their pick sans SEC schools and ND. Yet they passed.

I can see the ACC at 16. SEC...not so much because...yup...nobody worthwhile left after TAMU and Mizzou.

I think there is a better chance of:16+14+12+12+12 & a soft 26 (Cusa/MWC/BE remnants) than 4x16. Can call it the "F' MAC/Sun belt/WAC division".

There will NEVER be a 4x16, 64-team super league of college football teams.

Why not? The SEC and ACC are at 14 and are looking for 16...PAC12 knows who they want and are just waiting.

The only conference not making moves is the Big Ten...

If the others go to 16 I see tons of pressure on them to do the same.

So glad you took the bait.

Here's why. There's two distinct ways of going about leaving the NCAA to form a Super League:

Super League Option A: They leave the NCAA to form a "pro-style" sports league that collective bargains with TV.

Super League Option B: They leave the NCAA in a non-united fashion so that their current model can continue without NCAA interference (maybe a lawsuit forces them into "for profit" status and they don't want to share BCS access/revenues).

SL-B is more likely way a NCAA break happens, because every school always acts in their own self interests, and SL-A requires way more working together and unity.

In SL-B… #1 - 46 of the 66 BCS teams finished over .500 last season. Do you know how many of the 66 BCS teams had winning records against BCS teams last season? 23. Taking 64 teams means leaving behind the teams you get wins against. Your ability to negotiate with TV in SL-B will be based solely on your ability to win non-conference games. Teams that were 8-5 in our current setup, suddenly are 5-5, with non-conference games against BCS teams remaining. That's not good for business.

#2 - Speaking of business, those three wins we just talked about? 95% of them were played at the home of the BCS school. How can all 64 teams play 7 or 8 home games without the cupcakes? Expand the season to 14 games (possible; but 4-10 looks really bad) OR take 84 teams so you can kick the crap out of the bottom 20!

But mostly:#3 - If they're negotiating separately for TV deals, they could never GET to a 4x16 setup.

How is the Pac-16 going to happen? It doesn't make financial sense for them to expand without Texas or Oklahoma as the heavy hitter. There's no reason for Texas to pick the Pac-16 over the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC.

A) You're leaving money on the table by having 8-team divisions dictating your TV inventory. B) The weak half the Pac-16 and the ACC would provide the wins the Big Ten and SEC need. But their lack of success would drive up revenues for the SEC/Big Ten, who's carve up the ACC and Big 12 as the poaching continued.

They'd undercut the other conferences and then the ACC and Big XII would be weak and have to consolidate. We'd have three conferences, two with 24 teams each, and the other with the 16 worst teams.

In SL-ANow, if there IS cooperation and collective bargaining with TV as one league, "realigning" themselves to make a Pac-16, ACC-16, SEC-16 and Big 16 wouldn't be chaos. But the NHL and MLB can't do it with 30 teams and make everyone happy. How are they going to make 64 work?

#1 - They'd still be leaving a lot of money on the table as divisions would dictate your annual match-ups, and annual matchups are what sell to TV.

Look at the guesses in this thread: Oklahoma and Texas aren't guaranteed every year (and Okahoma vs Washington State is) Yeah, they could be played OOC. But they'd need a schedule formula similar to the NHL or MLB that ensured it to sell to TV.

#2 - To maximize their TV games, there's a lot of dead weight you can cut.

They'd be WAY better off taking too few teams than too little. Because those left behind would be irrelevant within a few years. You think anyone is going to miss West Virginia if they're left off? Or Northwestern, Iowa, Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech?

IF they are collectively bargaining like a pro league, this is the same money for less teams to split:

I think the door just about closed with the Pac-16 not happening. THAT was the keystone, because the only Pac-16 options would be Texas/Oklahoma (with their kid sisters in tow). There aren't any western options for the Pac-12 now. 6 yr tv rights waiver set, means at least 6 years before Pac-16 rumors start.

As for the Big Ten, really no options either. If they wanted to expand, they would have...they had pretty much their pick sans SEC schools and ND. Yet they passed.

I can see the ACC at 16. SEC...not so much because...yup...nobody worthwhile left after TAMU and Mizzou.

I think there is a better chance of:16+14+12+12+12 & a soft 26 (Cusa/MWC/BE remnants) than 4x16. Can call it the "F' MAC/Sun belt/WAC division".

But that's not a "split from the NCAA" That's just consolidation of power.

I'm talking the "College Sports League" of 64 teams, with NCAA Division I FBS comprised of all the teams left behind.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum